As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their "great houses," massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories high.
The article and lecture are both about the "great houses" in Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. The author of the reading believes they were used for certain purposes, and suggests three possible theories. However, the lecturer explains how the theories do not hold water and refutes each of them.
First, the reading claims that the great houses were used for residential purposes, housing hundreds of people. The professor agrees that on the outside the houses looked so as the article claims. However, he refutes the point by saying that on the inside the great houses couldn't have been used by so many people. He states that for the huge number of families, equivalent number of fireplaces should have been there where the families could have cooked meals. But very few fireplaces were found, for example, ten fireplaces for hundreds of families.
Second, the article posits that the great houses could have been used for storage supplies, mainly grain maize- a staple food. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He states that such use might have been plausible but is unsupported by evidence. Furthermore he says that if the point were true, spilled maize and remains of big maize containers should have been present significantly. Current evidence shows very less traces.
Finally, the article theorizes another use of the great houses as ceremonial centres, as suggested by mounds of old material specially broken pots. These pots are believed to be have been broken due to being discarded after festive meals had been served. The lecturer says this point is also not well supported. He rebuts the point by mentioning that the mound at Palo Alto had other non-ceremonial material as well, for example sand, stone and other construction material. This suggests that the place was used as a trash heap for construction. The pots were possibly left by the construction workers, after having completed their meals. Hence the mounds at Pueblo Alto are not good evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 274, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ing that on the inside the great houses couldnt have been used by so many people. He st...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 252, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...ausible but is unsupported by evidence. Furthermore he says that if the point were true, sp...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 419, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun traces is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...nificantly. Current evidence shows very less traces. Finally, the article theori...
^^^^
Line 7, column 135, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sted by mounds of old material specially broken pots. These pots are believed to ...
^^
Line 7, column 641, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...rs, after having completed their meals. Hence the mounds at Pueblo Alto are not good ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, second, so, well, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1664.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 326.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10429447853 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52382228953 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546012269939 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.3256099727 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.2 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.133520672254 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.042356282206 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0638064735906 0.0662205650399 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0961513595377 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0646174611909 0.0443174109184 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.